Grievance Case Summary - G-273

The grievance concerns the Force's decision to reject the Grievor's request for a partial reimbursement of rent paid to live in Force-owned accommodations in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador between 1993 and 1998. When the Grievor was posted to Happy Valley-Goose Bay in 1993, he was informed that his rent would be $640.00 per month. However, two years later, four other members at the same detachment were required to move out of their accommodations and into newer accommodations which were similar to the accommodations occupied by the Grievor. Those four members were allowed to continue paying rent of just $325.00 per month, as a result of a decision made by the Commanding Officer, exercising what he described as "managerial discretion." The Grievor asked to have his rent lowered to the same amount as the other members but his request was denied by the Force on the grounds that it had no discretion to do so because the Living Accommodations Charges Directive established by Treasury Board required that rents charged replicate fair market rents.

Sixteen months later, the Grievor reiterated his request and when that request was also denied, he submitted a grievance. The Level I adjudicator concluded that the grievance was not presented within the time permitted by s. 31(2)(a) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, i.e. within 30 days of the date when the Grievor "knew or reasonably ought to have known of the decision." At the second level, the Committee pointed out that the Grievor had indeed been aggrieved but it did not comment on the substance or the merits of the grievance. At the second level, the grievance was deemed to be past the deadline.

The Grievor then approached the Force again and asked to have his rent reduced to $325.00, retroactive to 1993. He maintained that the Committee, in reviewing his grievance, had determined that he had been overcharged because it stated that he was "aggrieved" by the Force's decision.

On September 27, 2002, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. In its findings in the current grievance, the Committee pointed out that is was somewhat understandable that the Grievor was confused as to just exactly what was meant by the Committee's earlier finding that he had been "aggrieved". However, that finding merely recognized that there were financial implications for the Grievor stemming from the Force's decision not to reduce his rent. This was not a determination as to the merits of the grievance. The Grievor was precluded from once again using the grievance process to have his rent reviewed. In any event, the Force's decision appears to have been a correct interpretation of the Living Accommodations Charges Directive. The Committee did point out, however, that it is questionable whether the Commanding Officer had any authority to reduce rents for other members.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

On November 8, 2002, the Acting Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, summarized as follows:

The Acting Commissioner concurred with the findings of the Committee and denied the grievance. He remarked that once a right of grievance is extinguished, it cannot be revived. He also remarked that there exists a real perception of inequitable treatment on how the rental rates were established and administered. The Acting Commissioner questioned whether any managerial discretion was permitted in regard to the lower rents which were authorized for certain members.